Embattled Upper Leacock farmer Amos Miller could have most of his civil fines wiped away and the threat of jail removed through a new consent decree presented to the court during a short 5-minute telephone conference last week.
Miller, who has been in a years-long dispute with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Justice over the processing and selling of meats through his private buyer’s club, was ordered by Judge Edward G. Smith on Dec. 13 to pay $30,000 within 10 days of signing the second consent decree in the case. The Amish farmer had originally faced around $250,000 in court sanctioned fines, including payments to George Lapsley, a food safety advisor assigned to the case.
Smith also ordered Miller to pay $55,065.72 over two installments to reimburse the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) for expenses involved in the case. And the show cause hearing scheduled in the case for Dec. 16 was continued and held in abeyance until Miller makes the three payments, and then the hearing can be suspended.
Smith said he was appreciative of the work done by Robert Barnes, Miller’s lawyer since September, and Gerald Sullivan, the assistant U.S. attorney for the Department of Justice overseeing the Miller case, to come to an agreement and resolve outstanding issues. Smith said Barnes did a “great service” for his client, and Sullivan did the same for the U.S. government.
“I was always hopeful that this would be resolved by a meeting of the minds as opposed to adversarial litigation,” Smith said. “I find the second consent decree to be an appropriate resolution of this matter.”
Consent Decree
Miller’s case has been in the court system since 2016 when the USDA-FSIS, represented by the U.S. Department of Justice, filed a civil action requiring Miller and Miller’s Organic Farm to comply with federal meat and poultry food safety statutes.
The USDA continues to require Miller to operate under the “Federal Grant of Inspection” before slaughtering, preparing, processing or selling for distribution certain meat and poultry products.
Miller had slaughtered animals such as cattle, chickens and pigs without federal inspections of his operation for several years, arguing his business model of selling private club memberships to his Miller’s Organic Farm exempted him from federal regulations.
The DOJ won permanent injunctions against Miller in civil actions closed out in March 2017 and November 2019, while the FSIS later found Miller again out of compliance. He was eventually forced to stop selling most meat and poultry products earlier this year.
The first consent decree in the case, signed by Miller in April 2020, included several stipulations, including stopping slaughtering operations until he could demonstrate he was in FSIS compliance with federal and state laws. Miller was later found out of compliance by the FSIS for continuing to sell meats through his website, leading to the court levying more than $305,000 in fines.
The new consent decree has the $30,000 fine to pay into the court’s registry, which includes reimbursements of Lapsley’s fees and expenses in the case. It also includes expenses to be paid to the U.S. Marshall’s service, who accompanied Lapsley at his request during a visit to the farm on March 17.
The other $55,065.72 Miller owes the USDA-FSIS must be paid in two installments, with the first half due Jan. 15, 2023, and the second payment due by April 15, 2023.
Miiller is being provided “an opportunity to show compliance” under his new attorney, according to the consent decree, and if found to be in compliance for a “sufficient period,” the civil contempt charges could be rescinded.
“This agreement of the parties on such payment amounts is without prejudice to the United States’ ability, in the event of future non-compliance, to ask the court to enforce the coercive civil contempt fine amounts held in abeyance and to seek additional compensatory civil contempt sanction,” according to the court documents.
The new decree also gives Miller until Dec. 31 to dispose of meat and poultry products that were put under seizure by Lapsley, the USDA-FSIS and U.S. Marshalls. Any product that was detained but not seized may continue to be distributed to Miller’s Organic Farm members under Lapsley’s and USDA-FSIS’ oversight.
The “arrested/seized products” on Miller’s property, which were produced without federal inspection, are limited to personal use, including by the farm workers or for personal pet food. Miller may not produce pet food for the market, but he is permitted to sell products to a licensed pet food manufacturer approved by FSIS.
Any seized products remaining on the farm by Dec. 31 must be destroyed.
Barnes’ Comments
Barnes, who has been involved in high-profile court cases for several years, including representing Wesley Snipes and Kyle Rittenhouse, spoke about Miller’s case last week on his popular VivaBarnesLaw Community podcast.
In the podcast, Barnes said Miller’s case is fundamentally about the ability for consumers to decide what kinds of foods and nutrients they want to put in their bodies.
“Amos doesn’t sell any food to anybody that doesn’t want it exactly how he’s making it,” Barnes said on his podcast. “He’s never mislabeled anything. He’s never adulterated anything. And he’s never been accused of doing that for any willing, consenting customer.”
Barnes said the USDA has called Miller’s meat product processing adulterated because it “doesn’t fit their standard” and that it is a “complete misapplication of the term.” He said adulteration is supposed to relate to a producer lying to the public about what’s in a product, not whether the USDA prefers a certain production method.
Barnes said the USDA engages in “nonsense” regarding foods that are approved for consumption, including through its promotion of the food pyramid that constantly changes and promotes foods that have been proven to be unhealthy. He said since the USDA came into existence with more oversight abilities, the general public has become less healthy and more obese.
“You give them a little bit of a crack when they open that door, they want to come in and they want to control now what you can put in your own body,” Barnes said. “The USDA is an embarrassment of an agency, and an honest government would just eradicate it, period. They have failed their test to protect public health. They have made our public health worse over and over and over again. It’s why so many people want Amos Miller-style produced food – it’s healthier.”
Barnes said he sees short-term, mid-term and long-term perspectives in Miller’s case. He said Miller in the short term wanted to “remove the guillotine of going to jail,” which was the outcome of the Dec. 13 hearing. He also said it was “absurd and outrageous” Miller was being threatened with jail to begin with.
“For Amos, at least he’ll be able to have Christmas at home, not in jail, and the farm won’t be facing imminent bankruptcy,” Barnes said.
The second short-term goal was to remove the monetary judgment that could bankrupt the farm, Barnes said, while also guaranteeing the release of some of the seized food.
Barnes said he is continuing to engage in negotiations with the government to find an intermediate solution. He said the U.S. Attorney’s office in Pennsylvania has been “very fair” in the case because they’re looking to promote the same understanding of the law as he has in the case, which is to make sure customers are getting what they want to get in the products they purchase within the law.
He said he doesn’t believe the USDA has the same motivations.
“The U.S. Attorney’s Office has been pretty fair and impartial about this,” Barnes said. “The hurdle, frankly, is consistently the U.S. Department of Agriculture.”
Barnes said the long-term solution is to build a custom exception plan allowing customers to get the food they want from farmers and for farmers to produce food the way they want to meet customer’s needs “without the government overseeing all of it” and to limit the actions that can be taken.
A custom exempt slaughter operation would involve other regulatory requirements for sanitation, humane slaughter of animals and selling of the product.
Barnes said he’s been talking to interested parties outside of the case who want to address many of the issues through a constitutional and legal perspective. He said the case ultimately is a “call for legislative reform” with needed legal changes and the ultimate removal of the USDA from controlling the food supply.
“They should be in the labeling and marketing business, not the food governance business,” Barnes said. “And at a minimum, it should be made crystal clear in the law that no government regulation shall be interpreted to limit what a person puts in their own body under informed consent.”
Staff writer Michael Yoder is an award-winning journalist who has been honored with several Keystone Press Awards for his investigative pieces.
Comments 2